Listener’s Letter Goes Against the Grain
Kory Teneycke’s testy interview with Kathleen Petty on her show, The House, last June, grabbed the attention of at least one listener.
Not one to beat around the bush, and having no paper in his shop, he wrote his letter on a plank of wood and dropped it off at the our Fredericton station. Here’s the text of the letter.
While working in the shop this morning listening to Kathleen interview Cory [sic] [Teneycke] of [VP, Development at Quebecor] at 9:35 am I was appalled at how rude, inconsiderate and unprofessional this gentleman was to Kathleen presenting her interview.
He constantly cut her off while she was talking and blatantly bullied her while she asked exceptionally good questions in regards to the news show he is promoting.
Because of Cory’s mannerisms I will not be subscribing to the news show he is involved with.
I only wonder if the company is as unprofessional as Cory.
Hats off to Kathleen for not backing off in the interview. She is one cool woman!
Signed:
Mike Stewart,
Fredericton
June 19, 2010
9:43 a.m.PS: I have no paper in the shop, the twit that tweets people doesn’t work weekends, the secretary knows how to run the fax machine (I don’t) so this is my form of communication.
I love that last bit about the twit that tweets and the fax machine, too funny.
|
Email This Post |
| Asides |
pretty cool item, Paul.
I’m listening to the interview now and I will pay any price or endure any hardship just to get away from Kathleen’s passive aggressive sarcasm. Sun media just can’t come soon enough.
All those leading questions and slanted frames of reference just didn’t get the juicy voice clip she was fishing for. I guess she didn’t like to get the CBC ratings rubbed in her face.
The question of who jumps when the politicians phone may be a question for Sun media but it’s definitely been proven that the CBC dances to the Liberal party’s tunes.
Kathleen Petty’s question was just plain stupid. If you persist in asking a stupid question in a manner that is mildly aggressive don’t be surprised if the person you are interviewing responds with aggression. She wanted to create the impression that managing an organization that happens to be a broadcaster is a job that can ONLY be done by someone with a journalism background. This was a professional journalist protecting both her professional turf and the institution she works for, nothing more.
Keep digging your heals in folks. It will only make it worse.
It was not a stupid question, but a quite valid one. If not a journalism or TV production background, what experience does Mr. Teneycke bring that is relevant to the position he’s set to assume? Also, there’s a definite double standard with you rightwingers. Had the interviewer been a conservative Fox News type interviewing a leftwinger, you would be cheering her on for her tenacity. Look, journalists try to get to the truth of the matter, and if that means putting the interviewee on the hot seat and making him feel uncomfortable, that’s just par for the course. “Passive aggressive sarcasm”? What rot! And you silly rightwingers think we lefties have a monopoly on political correct terminology. You’re no better – you just believe the rules should only apply to one side and that you should get a free pass. Not here, folks!
Mike Stewart says “Because of Cory’s mannerisms I will not be subscribing to the news show he is involved with.”
Because of, among many many other things, Kathleen Petty’s mannerisms – I’d like to un-subscribe from the news shows that she’s involved with.
Oh wait, I can’t. The CBC is funded by over $1 Billion a year from taxpayers whether they want to “subscribe” or not.
Shame!!!
A friend of mine told me that the Conservative Party actually has a number of letter writers on staff whose sole purpose is to inundate numerous websites with postings to further the right-wing agenda.
After reading posts by Bill, Louise, Mike, The Truth etc. I’m starting to believe him.
They seem to think that the moment the CBC is critical of the government (the job of a democratic press) they see it as left-wing propaganda. They conveniently forget CBC’s coverage when the Liberals were in power.
Just a few examples:
When Martin was running for P.M. critical reports were published regarding dubious practices at Martin’s company CSL.
They talked about how Dion failed miserably when he was environment minister.
Chrétien was hammered and made fun of all the time by the CBC.
So grow up, PCers and show you’ve grown a pair instead of the constant whining.
That’s right West-ender. we’re all part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Paul Martin’s crappy election ads were warning you about. You remember..
Soldiers with guns in our cities.
In Canadian cities.
We didn’t make this up.
We’re not allowed too.
Or maybe we’re just like Frank “Gravy train” Graves who is portrayed as Canada’s everyman but is actually a rabid partisan, jumping to his masters bidding. How’s that “culture war” working out for you folks?
I didn’t get a choice on Kathleen Petty, what she reports, or any CBC content. I do get a choice with private industry though. I will always favor the people who give me a say.
Come on, Bill. Don’t paraphrase Palin. You were doing so adequately up until then.
This made my day.
Kory Teneycke
Oh really Bill? That pinko commie network has not been giving you a say?
P.S. Check the dictionary when to use the word ‘to’ or ‘too’.
Pete in ‘Sauga: “Had the interviewer been a conservative Fox News type interviewing a leftwinger, you would be cheering her on for her tenacity.”
More BS. Neither a degree in journalism nor many years in the business guarantees the graduate has organizational and management skills any more than a long history of Liberal Party appointees to the CBC Board of Directors guarantees impartial hiring of the Board’s Executive Director and any of his hires.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody said Teneycke is going to be doing the man-on-the-street interviewing or the investigative reporting or even the CEO. At the moment, Teneycke is “vice-president of business development”. A degree in management or business administration is a better hire for a top administrator.
Kathleen Petty, true to her name, was simply being petulant because Teneycke wouldn’t reveal to her what Sun News plans to do. Can you imagine CTV’s top executive taking that kind of BS from a CBC hack? Not very likely. Can you imagine CBC asking tough questions of its own management? Hah!! Hell would freeze over before that would happen.
Owners and managers set the tone, the policy, goals and objectives and that’s what Teneycke will likely be doing. We already have a privately owned broadcaster who covers the politics in Ottawa, and that’s CPAC and they do a far better job than CBC.
The CBC is, quite simply, afraid of any further competition and is fishing for some lame excuse to discredit the new kid on the block, treating this story as if there is some sinister hidden plot against the public that they are duty bound to uncover for the sake of all Canadians. Get over it, CBC. You’re not God’s gift to Canada. You’re only a bit player in the vast and ever growing field of alternatives available to us.
West-ender says: “A friend of mine told me that the Conservative Party actually has a number of letter writers on staff whose sole purpose is to inundate numerous websites with postings to further the right-wing agenda.
After reading posts by Bill, Louise, Mike, The Truth etc. I’m starting to believe him.”
Yup. Libs do tend to be gullible.
Is that all you got West-Ender?
Rather than try to understand my post, you simply (and lazily) assume that it’s a vast right-wing conspiracy.
I am not a card carrying anything. I’ve never been contacted by anyone to post my valid concerns on this web site. The fact that you truly believe that anyone who is tired of paying for the CBC’s bias must be part of a conspiracy is very telling for the group think of CBCers.
If Mike Stewart can choose not to “subscribe” to Kory’s Con-TV. Why can’t I choose to “un-subscribe” from the left-wing CBC? Please answer the question before resorting to desperate ad-hominem attacks.
I love it. I felt the same was as this listener did. Kathy’s questions were well thought-out and intentionally put to Kory, he responded with rhetoric, pure and simple.
Since I rarely listen to CBC radio, I am TV-less, and I only occasionally read CBC web-based stories, can someone tell me if there has been a peep yet out of CBC anywhere about the JournoList scandal?
We seem to be treated to a full court press against Sun Media because it’s “right wing” (oh the horrors), but when for the second time since November of last year the exposure of unethical behaviour of leftwing ideologues (in the JournoList case, leftwing ideologues of the journalist variety, no less, hell bent on influencing the outcome of an election in their favour), CBC seems strangely silent.
Funny that. When a whistle blower is of the leftist persuasion, he or she normally becomes an instant hero. Interviews are sought and promoted to improve ratings. Books are published. Eventually movies are made of their stories.
But when a whistle blower on the conservative side of the aisle exposes unethical behavour on the left, what do we get? Silence. Deafening silence, followed by excuses about privacy and hackers stealing “personal” communications. (Not leakers, of course, because that would be not quite so unethical. They have to be hackers.)
All pretext to unbiased journalistic-bloodhound instincts suddenly evaporates and we’ve more concerned about the privacy and protection of the individuals accused of wrongdoing, rather than the usual rapacious drive to be the first to dig the fangs in and draw blood.
Funny also that this story has a Fox News angle. Seems we’re jumping all over ourselves and slobbering like dogs when we can disparage Fox News, but for some strange reason, when Fox is the object of the unethical behavior, and not the subject….. again, an eerie silence.
At the very least, I would like to know if there were any Canadian journalists, perhaps working in a Washington bureau, or in New York, that were on the listserv and, if there were, I’d like to know what they did while this was going on. But then again, the story is about left wing journalists, and they, of course, are sacrosanct so we must circle the wagons.
I need to give this a listening-to ASAP.
Louise, it seems very strange to me that you confess in your post above: ” I rarely listen to CBC radio, I am TV-less, and I only occasionally read CBC web-based stories”. Yet despite this self-imposed lack of firsthand knowledge (especially on its television output), you are hell bent on the destruction of the CBC. How can you honestly comment on something that you don’t even experience on a somewhat regular basis?
Since you’ve been posting your critical comments here on this blog, I have been keeping an eye on your equally toxic rightwing rants on your own blog. In your profile you say this: “I monitor comments to keep out trolls and lunatic lefties”. No kidding? I notice that you get no comments on the majority of your posts, with only the occasional one from a fellow agreeable rightwinger on scant few others. What this tells me is that you are like a brick wall, in that you will not allow through any comments that differ in opinion from your own, thereby not encouraging real discussion whatsoever. Yet here on this site, you have been given a soapbox from which to rant and denigrate the CBC and its viewers.
My conclusion is this: This Inside the CBC forum is in fact, far more “Fair and Balanced” than your narrowminded little blog, in that it allows the voices of differing opinions to be heard, whereas yours does not. On your blog, there is no discussion. Instead it is just you talking to yourself, or at best, just preaching to the choir. If you actually watched CBC News, you would find that they have a variety of rightwing editorialists that you might actually like. Fact is, I really admire the intelligent and fairminded Andrew Coyne on the At Issue panel. Likewise I get a kick out of much of what Rex Murphy says, as he shows great wit when he says it, even though I only agree with his opinions half the time. On the other hand, financial commentator, Kevin O’Leary is an obnoxious, bullying lout. I’m sure you’d like him best of all – he’s your kind of conservative.
Hey Pete – If Mike Stewart can opt out of SUN-TV because he disagrees with Kory’s manners and apparently his politics, Why can’t I opt out of the CBC for the same reasons? Just answer the question.
Alright, Mike, I will answer your question directly, without the sort of evasion that is typical of your kind. I will be the first to admit that the CBC might possibly not survive as a private network. However, if it did not survive, it would not be for a lack of quality programming, either on the regular network or on the news channel. No, quality these days has nothing to do with survival in the free market, as you conservative types seem to consider the only litmus test that counts. What we’re seeing with the free market is a steady decline in TV and radio broadcasts of anything to do with the arts, for one thing. Popular music stations play nothing but inane rock and rap, most of which sounds alike and is virtually tuneless. Jazz stations are few, classical stations even fewer. Our live symphonies are dwindling in number at an alarming rate. Real culture is now considered taboo by the general populace, who apparently would rather spend their entertainment dollars on mindless dreck like “Iron Man 2″.
If you look at what is passing for entertainment on television now, you will find that there is very little variety or difference between any of the private networks. All of them, whether American or Canadian, are increasingly producing dumbed down fare, especially with the plethora of cheap, idiotic “Reality” shows that the general public seems to crave. Sadly, even CBC has been giving in a bit to this trend, no thanks to Richard Stursberg, who is trying desperately to get the ratings numbers up by appealing to more populist (or as I call it, “crass”) tastes. Ironically, he is trying to reach out to you rightwing types who, as it is clear from this forum, will never give the CBC a chance regardless of what they broadcast. My feeling is that CBC should go back to setting the bar high, both on TV and radio, even if that results in shows that are perceived by some as being “elitist”.
Getting away from entertainment for a moment, if the free market (i.e. the general population) were allowed to make all decisions by votes cast, there would be a return to the death penalty here in Canada, as just one example. Fortunately, wiser heads within government and the court system have chosen not to reinstate such barbarism. See, I happen to believe that there must be some public institutions kept maintained to make decisions that are for the overall public good, not merely to satisfy the desires of the unwashed masses.
As far as news goes, I believe that CBC Newsworld certainly was up there with BBC World News and the PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. To be honest, I feel that the recent meddling by Mr. Stursberg, combined with the eroding budget from the recent Conservative and yes, Liberal governments, has done much damage to CBC in its ability to sustain essential news gathering and a topnotch newscast. That’s why I support the idea of restoring funds to the CBC, not further suffocation, in order to bring it back up to a high level again. And, yes, sorry to disappoint you, Mike, but that means public support through tax dollars. Otherwise, if left completely to the whims of the free market, I do fear that the general populace of Canada is collectively too selfish and blind to recognize what is for the common good.
I hope that answers your question, Mike. Now maybe you can convince Mr. Teneycke to be more forthcoming in his answers too from now on.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “How can you honestly comment on something that you don’t even experience on a somewhat regular basis?”
When I was a kid around 11 or 12 years of age, I observed my parents listening to the CBC radio noon hour agriculture report. When I was a freshman/sophomore in high school and college I was glued to CBC radio and TV for its news and public affairs programs. Throughout my earlier adult life, CBC was my favourite.
But something has happened to it in the last decade or two and maybe it was also that I eventually grew up and learned to evaluate the media rather than just swallow what they offered. Or perhaps it was the proliferation of alternatives that became available via the web around that time. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in their coverage of the Iraq war, it was not just their anti-American pro-neck-slasher orientation that turned me off. It was also the fact that with so much information available elsewhere, that it was easy to refute and catch CBC in so many errors and so much blatant bias, that that essentially finished it for me.
So I stopped religiously watching CBC about six or seven years ago. And CBC wasn’t the only one. The Dan Rather fiasco was another clincher. The Paliwood exposee, another. We now have the JournoList sham. For some reason, the media will not report on the media when the media is the story. Quelle surprise!
Of course, when I’m visiting relatives I watch it. When I’m driving around on business or pleasure I will sometimes listen to it. I will read the occasional news story on the web, so essentially I have enough consumption of CBCs offerings to know it hasn’t changed substantially. If anything, it’s gotten worse.
I can also draw some inferences from comments attached to CBC websites (like this one and like the news stories), when I see the people who worship CBC, almost without exception, are from the left side of the aisle, which provides clues as to what sort of programming CBC offers, as in flies to honey, leftists to CBC, righties to talk radio, etc..
Altogether that makes roughly 40 to 45 years of exposure to the CBC. If that isn’t enough to draw conclusions, I don’t know what is.
I’m sure you’ve heard that old saying which some attribute to Winston Churchill, but I think it was really Aristride Briand: “If you’re not a socialist at twenty, there’s something wrong with your heart. If you’re still a socialist at forty, there’s something wrong with your head.” Well CBC seems to be the exception to that, but I’m not.
In addition to that, I would just like to point out, that once again, it is the fact that I have to pay for something that I no longer consume and that I have no choice about that, which is my principle concern. That seems to fly right past you over and over and over again, so perhaps you will admit that experiencing something multiple times and recently, at that, isn’t necessarily going to change one’s opinion of things.
Now, can you tell me how frequently and for how long you watch Fox News? For the record, I rarely watch even short clips of it, but it seems a lot of lefties are dead set against it, but few of them seem to think it is necessary for them to be a regular viewer in order to qualify as a critic of the enterprise.
Oh, and when you start paying for my blog, then you’ll have some say about my comments policy. I noticed you haven’t attempted to comment, so perhaps you should at least engage in one experiment where you can test your theory.
Here’s the bio of Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada: http://tinyurl.com/2c8rc3z
Not much experience in journalism there. In fact, I don’t see any at all, at least of the in-the-trenches variety. I do see extensive experience in law and in directorship at the board level on major corporations, though.
When will Kathleen Petty interview him and rake him over the coals for his lack of experience in journalism?
I mean, seriously, folks, how can you keep a straight face while pretending Petty and the Mother Corpse as a whole are not serving anyone but themselves inside their little circle of wagons aka bubble.
In today’s news: A left-wing hippy writes an attack letter on a piece of wood, sends it to a left-wing media company, and promises to follow only left-wing media.
Coyne and Rex Murphy are right wing? Hardly. Their middle of the road at best. Their right wing to you because the CBC always stacks them against way to far left-tards.
When everyone at the CBC is either a shill for the Liberals or some slice of “progressive”, average Canadians look like Ronald Reagan.
When is climatologist Tim Ball going to be in the CBC? I want to see all the pretty colours in Suzuki’s face when he throws another tantrum, demands prisons or hangings for unbelievers. The BBC is open minded enough that they stopped taking a side. When with the CBC grow up and do the same?
Pete in ‘Sauga: I’ll second your assessment of Rex Murphy.
I see the Small Dead Animals crew are out in force on this topic too, eh?
All the usual suspects and attitudes present and accounted for, Louise conducting the orchestra. The vast majority of CBC listeners probably don’t even know this blog forum exists, but all the white hot angry conservative blog posters who don’t listen to the CBC, and proudly proclaim the fact from the rooftops, are present and blowing their horns.
Hey, movement conservatives, I give you full marks for organization, persistence, and staying on message. But those are all characteristics of adherence to a faith or ideology, an exercise in propaganda, not an understanding of reality. I heard the interview in question and the idea that Kathleen Petty – from Calgary conservative territory no less – is seething with contempt for Kory Teneycke or his positions is absurd.
When Louise made the claim in another thread that Michael Enright, Carol Off, and Anna Maria Tremonti were all dripping with contempt or sarcasm for conservative views, I asked her to post or point me to an example. She admitted she couldn’t find one. It’s one thing to hold conservative (or socialist, for that matter) views, it’s another to hear or imagine a slight or contempt that isn’t there. The whole point of challenging political points of view is to test their validity and see how well the proponents can articulate their positions. Preston Manning even has a “finishing school” for young conservatives to help them polish their public speaking skills and obtain internships and positions in the conservative political machine. Teneycke and Harper are both Manning proteges.
http://www.manningcentre.ca/
The movement conservatives that now dominate the Conservative party have little connection with either Tory positions traditionally or the later Progressive Conservative party. Those conservatives could deal with politics on a rational and thoughtful basis. They listened to other opinions, not just the voices in their heads. Examples? Bill Davis. Joe Clark. Robert Stanfield. Eugene Forsey. Dalton Camp. Brian Mulroney, even. (None of this is intended to whitewash Liberal behaviour over the last two decades, but at least Liberal flacks take their media lumps without being crybabies about it.) Can’t say the same for movement conservatives.
The CBC’s “art” is boring, expensive, inconsequential, and watched by very few Canadians. More dangerously, the CBC promotes left-wing communist cultural relativist ideals that damage Canada and allow evil to roam unfettered.
Western civilization and the free world are in decline because of, not in spite of, institutions like the CBC. The road to the dark ages is paved with good intentions, while the CBC proliferates higher taxes, Canadian cultural loss, regulations on *everything*, and rewarded mediocrity.
“Teneycke and Harper are both Manning proteges.”
That’s wonderful. Michael Enright, Carol Off, and Anna Maria Tremonti are left-wingers who pontificate under the guise of neutrality. This is disingenuous, dangerous, and dishonest. But hey, that’s the CBC.
The Truth says: “The CBC’s “art” is boring, expensive, inconsequential, and watched by very few Canadians.”
“Boring”, huh? It is precisely because of the mindset of people like “The Truth” that the world is plunging deeper and deeper into the age of mediocrity. That is why I consider maintaining CBC to be essential, with a return to the higher aspirations it once held in its programming. If everything is determined by the free market, all we will get is cheap and nasty reality shows on TV, and rock and rap on radio. Fast paced titillation passing for entertainment. It’s already happening in the private TV and radio stations because there aren’t enough people with discerning tastes to vote otherwise. That’s why we need public television and radio – to serve those who are no longer being served by the greedy private networks.
Those of you who are content to watch and listen to populist fare like reality shows, inane pop/rock and rap, have numerous venues out there from which to choose. Those of us that despise such idiotic crap only have the public networks like CBC and PBS where we can find something of quality. And sadly, since CBC was placed in the hands of former president, Robert Rabinovich, and his second in command, Richard Stursberg, CBC has been dumbing down by increasingly adding populist fare in the hopes of competing with the private networks. This is precisely the wrong direction to go. CBC must get back on track by raising the bar higher and creating entertainment and current affairs programming that appeal to finer tastes. Yes, it costs money to do so. And yes, that requires being taxpayer funded, because a privatized CBC would end up just as crass and dumb as what the private networks have devolved into over the last twenty years or so.
“CBC must get back on track by raising the bar higher and creating entertainment and current affairs programming that appeal to finer tastes.”
So, you mean that CBC is *supposed* to be unwatched? by a fringe group with “discerning tastes”? What does this mean? Perhaps it means a bunch of radical leftists who love the Green/communist parties?
Stop trying to convince us that the CBC is a bastion of enlightened goodness, because it’s not. Most CBC programs remain unwatched and ridiculed spcifically because they offer little of value to people who are not radical socialists. You’re trying to convince me that private entities such as the National Geographic channel, Discovery, History Network, Al jazeera, or even Schindler’s list are dumbed-down for the illiterate masses because they’re not “discerning tastes” produced with taxpayer money?
This culture of entitlement has to stop. These CBC employees claim their fringe is a “discerning taste”, while offering little of value to justify the massive taxpayer cost. Bottom line: you don’t know what’s good for me. Don’t tell me what’s for my own good. You and George Soros can pay for your own channel.
Dennis Brown says: “Louise conducting the orchestra.”
Proud to serve.
The Truth says: “You’re trying to convince me that private entities such as the National Geographic channel, Discovery, History Network, Al jazeera, or even Schindler’s list are dumbed-down for the illiterate masses because they’re not “discerning tastes” produced with taxpayer money?”
Actually, that’s exactly what I’m saying. While some of those specialty channels you cite started out with quite good programming targeted towards niche markets, all of them got greedy and started changing their formats to suit the tastes of the broader market. In so doing, yes, they dumbed down a lot. I used to really enjoy The Discovery Channel when it first started up, but now it offers little of interest to me. Its flagship show, Daily Planet, is fair, but not as good as it was in the beginning when it was titled @Discovery.Ca. Everything else has become hyped up, high energy, pablum for the masses. Ditto for The History Channel. Even The National Geographic channel does not live up to the glory of its TV specials from the 60s and 70s.
I’ll give you an even better example: A&E. When it first arrived on the scene it was A&E, the Arts and Entertainment channel, and it specialized in dance, classical music, and other arts programming. At some point, however, they decided they wanted to gain a broader audience, so they dropped the latter part of their title, hoping nobody would even recall what A&E used to stand for. Now, instead of nice concerts and ballets, they run such slop as Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels and Dog The Bounty Hunter. (Two of your faves, eh, Mr. Truth?)
This is why no private TV network or specialty channel can be trusted to generate anything of worth today. Which is why it is essential to maintain CBC, PBS in the U.S., and TVO here in Ontario. But of course, Mr. Truth would say that nothing should be allowed to exist if it’s only serving the tastes of the minority. That only the strong should survive. And because of people like Mr. Truth, society is left with reality shows, tuneless pop/rock and rap, and all manner of other dreck on our private airwaves. Maybe that’s just fine for you fans of The Jerry Springer Show, but not for people like me who demand more from music and TV. Frankly, if TV keeps getting worse and worse, I’m very likely to just cancel Rogers cable altogether and create my own programming from vintage TV and movies I’ve collected on DVD over the years. You complain about funding CBC – fact is, I shouldn’t have to pay for watching the slop that’s infested most of the 500 channel universe that we’ve now got. Can’t at least a handful of those channels aspire to something better?
Pete in ‘Sauga reveals himself to be one of those “people with discerning tastes” (ie) elitist snob. Poor CBC. With friend’s like this, how can they possibly win?
Reminds me of the royalty in the old days. Tax the peasants to pay for their marauding crusades in their never ending quest of other thrones.
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “Those of us that despise such idiotic crap only have the public networks like CBC and PBS where we can find something of quality.”
Go for it Pete. I’m all in favour of turning CBC into a real public broadcaster like PBS. Theirs in one of those “alternative” methods of raising the cash they need.
But alas, it’s not working well for them, either:
http://www.current.org/audience/aud0822pbs.shtml
“Over the last 10 seasons, PBS’s ratings have dropped 37 percent, from 1.9 in 1998-99 to 1.2 in 2007-08. The primetime weekly cume — the percent of all households that tuned into pubTV in a typical week — has dropped 35 percent to 19.9 in 2007-08. Viewership has declined even more rapidly over the past few seasons, according to Beth Walsh, director of research at PBS.”
Louise, you keep on turning a blind eye to most of what I write. If you had actually read my last few posts, you’d realize that I am realistic enough to be pessimistic over the survival of CBC without government funding. And, yes, I know that PBS is hurting because of declining viewer support. But as I’ve constantly pointed out, the private networks no longer are capable of creating genuine entertainment, just cheaper and cheaper dreck like reality shows.
Yes, Louise, I’m happy to be an elitist – I’ll wear that description as a badge of honour. That’s a darn sight better than being a selfish, blinkered rightwinger who wants everything that she disagrees with to come crashing down so she can dance on its grave. How pathetic.
Amen. A little selfishness is useful, but there IS such a thing as overkill.
“The Truth” writes:
> Michael Enright, Carol Off, and Anna Maria Tremonti are left-wingers
> who pontificate under the guise of neutrality.
I asked Louise to give an example. She couldn’t or wouldn’t. But since you are “The Truth”, you should be able to give an example of their left-wing bias. Care to provide one to back up your claim?
Pete in ‘Sauga says: “Everything else has become hyped up, high energy, pablum for the masses. Ditto for The History Channel. Even The National Geographic channel does not live up to the glory of its TV specials from the 60s and 70s”
Oh, you’re so close to understanding it, Pete. Just a wee bit more and maybe you’ll finally get it. Television is a dieing industry. Why oh why should taxpayers fund a technology that is going the way of the dinosaur?
As I’ve said before. I canceled my cable subscription a few years back and put my TV in storage. Unless and until Sun TV gets off the ground and proves itself, I doubt I’ll ever go back.
Pete spits his venom – “That’s a darn sight better than being a selfish, blinkered rightwinger who wants everything that she disagrees with to come crashing down so she can dance on its grave. How pathetic.”
That’s the angry left alright. I just don’t know why the angry left expects us middle-of-the-roaders and right-of-centers to pay for their platform of hate. I don’t have a problem with your position. I. Just. Don’t. Want. To. Pay.
Get it? Why am I a bad person for being reluctant to pay the way of people who hate me and my beliefs?
I don’t watch any of the garbage TV that Pete listed (socialist or privately produced), and I am an elitist with a bastion of discerning tastes.
I agree with Pete’s assessment that PBS and CBC are definitely “something else”, however my difference is that the CBC, like PBS, should be funded by the fools who follow it.
This will happen sooner rather than later, Alla willing. Goodbye.
Yes, Pete, what Mike said: I. Don’t. Want. To. Pay.
I want to cash in my shares. I’ll sell ‘em to you real cheap.
It’s the MO of the progressives.. find or fabricate a problem then gain popularity pretending to be the only ones who can fix it.
Y2K, Global warming, Climate change is the classic example. Something terrible is wrong and we’re all going to die unless we immediately give money to poor nations, ride a bicycle, give up meat, stop watching FOX.. whatever it is, the CBC demands it of us and portrays us as bad Canadians if we don’t join their little bandwagon.
“Progressives” didn’t “find” Y2K or invent it; computer systems analysts identified a potential problem on older systems. They devised a plan to circumvent the problem and did so in a way that avoided any major disasters or inconveniences. There was no conspiracy there.
But I see a pattern emerging here. Conservatives no longer do facts or statistics (see statistics imbroglio) because when you have strong beliefs, you don’t need facts. To demonstrate this claim, I refer you to the datalibre.ca web site where there are lists comparing organizations and individuals supporting the long form census and those opposing it. Currently, the list is 212 supporting the long form and 6 who would like to end it.
Let’s examine the 6 who would like to end it:
1. National Citizens Coalition census
2. The Fraser Institute
3. Lorne Gunther and Ezra Levant, National Post
4. Canadian Taxpayers Federation
5. Toronto Sun editorial
6. Terence Corcoran, Columnist National Post
http://datalibre.ca/census-watch/
None of these are organizations or individuals who would use data from the long form for major planning initiatives. There’s no representatives of industry, government, or even evangelical religious organizations there. So what do the above all have in common? They all have a desire to end what they see as the “welfare state” in Canada. And killing the census data or making it unreliable would further that end. If you can’t prove with numbers that poverty exists, there’s no reason for any anti-poverty programs. Stephen Taylor, a conservative blogger, seems to have agreed with this motive in a post on the National Post web site:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/26/stephen-taylor-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-canadian-welfare-state/#more-7740
Please tell me what you mean by the Small Dead Animals crew. I find that quite insulting and presumptuous.
As for my anti-global warming tirade, when will the CBC start an honest, open debate like the BBC has done? The CBC are the ones who are treating this as some kind of religion.
Bill, it just scares them sh!tless that a single blogger, from that backwater redneck province, could possibly have more fans than CBC does. Name me one Canadian leftie blog that can honestly (keyword, that) claim to have so many readers from all over North America. Kate and her guest bloggers do the job that CBC refuses to do – spotlighting the hypocrisy of the MSM and their leftie groupees.
Case in point: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014566.html
Dennis Brown says: “I see the Small Dead Animals crew are out in force on this topic too, eh?
All the usual suspects and attitudes present and accounted for, Louise conducting the orchestra. The vast majority of CBC listeners probably don’t even know this blog forum exists, but all the white hot angry conservative blog posters who don’t listen to the CBC, and proudly proclaim the fact from the rooftops, are present and blowing their horns.”
Comment from SDA:
“Louise: Welcome to the power of SDA. I’ll let you in on a little secret … in the past, my site Celestial Junk, has been linked to by Malkin, Steyn, Frontpage, TownHall, Five Feet, a number of major Israeli News orgs, and Gateway Pundit … none, yield as many hits as SDA. I don’t think most people realize just how many readers Kate has.
Posted by: Cjunk | July 30, 2010 12:05 PM”
Now Dennis, be a man. Don’t cry. Just accept that a second rate blog serving a second rate broadcaster doesn’t hold a candle to the power of SDA. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off and carry on and follow the CBC as it fades into the sunset.
We’re not done with the CBC yet, Louise.
Oh, and as of this morning: the count at datalibre.ca is 298 for long-form, 10 against.